I really like the point about lenses serving different purposes in DX and FX systems. As a dedicated Nikon DX supertelephoto wildlife shooter my 300 f2.8 VR lens is my all around supertelephoto lens, my 500 f4 AF-S is my really long lens. Put these lenses on an FX camera and the 500 f4 becomes the all around supertelephoto and I would need a 600 f4 or 800 f5.6 for that really long lens.
But I'm weakening regarding a split system. The vey fact that a lens can serve different purposes in an FX and DX system might mean, for some of us, that a split system is the optimal solution. The new 400 f2.8 E FL VR in conjunction with a D810 is capable of resolution far in excess of what I can get with a 300 f2.8 VR and D7100. And used with TCs and the D7100 it could outperform my 500 f4 as a really long lens in most situations. But the extra kilogram concerns me for hand holding. Perhaps a new 500 E, which likely would weigh the same as a 300 f2.8 VR could serve as the pivot of a split system.
pwilly: This lens and a 1.4 TC in the bag makes both a 300 and a 420. If it is as sharp as the existing 300 its a win, win!
MTF looks good, much better than the old lens.
The 300 f4 is only part of the package Nikon: now we need a serious action oriented DX camera to mount it on.
JimPearce: Wow! Captive animals and baiting in one video.
I don't recall mentioning morality, and I agree that moral judgements (including yours) are subjective. My own position is more existential/ontological - I don't get the thrill of the hunt on a game farm nor do I accept the implicit description of this activity as wildlife photography. I do think it's a convenient way to test the camera.
Wow! Captive animals and baiting in one video.
Well I think it's pretty, and pretty silly.
Pat Cullinan Jr: <quote>should provide the depth-of-field control and low-light image quality on an APS-C DSLR that you'd get using an F2.8 zoom on 35mm full-frame.</quote>
The aperture of a lens is quite independent of the format of the film or sensor. In other words, f/1.8 is f/1.8 whether the lens is placed before an APS-C sensor or a full-frame sensor. The intensity of the light striking the target is the same whether you have a small or a large target. The aperture is a function solely of the focal length and the entrance "pupil" (meaning the diameter of the circle of light you see when you look through the lens from the rear).
I hope everybody understands this, because otherwise you'll be making disadvantageous decisions or doing things wrong.
Yada, yada, yada. Of course it is a faster lens, but truly equivalent as it allows the DX shooter to shoot at an ISO just over one stop lower.
jtan163: I think I'd like one, especially for low light (would've liked to have seen some low light/night shots), but I'm not sure I can justify it.
I wonder if they'll try something in a focal length range in the short to mid tele range.
Either way it's a pretty nice time to be a photographer/camera buff/geardo.
As a DX proponent, I like the concept. I'm thinking this lens might really cook with a D7100. However, as I'm mostly a wildlife shooter I think my 17-50 f2.8 Tamron screwdriver may be "good enough".